You assume they are the same drug. You have no way of knowing. One has EUA and the other hasn't been manufactured yet. One is not liable for death or injury, the other not manufactured yet and they are liable. So, which will they use? The EUA and claim it's fully approved to get people to take it. Meanwhile the approved one hasn't been made. Sounds like a game of 3 card monte to me. Here's the way it works. Somebody who has been hesitant thinks it's fully approved and gets the jab. They die. Family cannot sue. Why? Pfizer claims immunity because of EUA. The full authorization is needed to convince corporations and the military to use it. Any death or injury that they should be liable for will get pitched because they'll claim it was from the earlier stockpile that had EUA. Heads they win, tails you lose.
You are right. I read that entire article. The Pfizer shot has had its EUA extended. The other shot, BioNtech Comirnaty, is the one that is licensed but is not being manufactured. The article explains all of this very clearly to anyone who wishes to read it.
In fact I read the documents when this all started and those documents were quite clear that this is NOT the Pfizer shot that is approved but the one by the name Comirnaty which is not the covid-19 "vaccine".
Trumploaf either cannot read or is intentionally spreading mis-information.
Vaccine manufacturers can't be sued for side effects of vaccines, period.
It doesn't matter if the vaccine is FDA approved or EUA.
Look up the PREP Act. It was passed in 2005, I think.
Also, because I know it's going to be brought up due to the debate over calling the Covid-19 jabs "vaccines"- the technical jargon used in the PREP act includes "medical countermeasures", so the covid jabs are covered under that.
Just a note; my knowledge of the PREP Act doesn't mean I agree with it, so please don't shoot the messenger, 'kay?
Sure it's relevant. CMAnon was theorizing that the vaccine manufacturers would use the EUA status as a means to avoid lawsuits for side effects from the jabs.
I was pointing out that that couldn't be an issue because vaccine manufacturers can not be sued for side effects of their vaccines, no matter if the vaccine is FDA approved or has an EUA.
I wasn't claiming that the vaccines were FDA approved. I was simply pointing out that one of the scenarios described in the conversation was wrong due to the PREP Act.
You assume they are the same drug. You have no way of knowing. One has EUA and the other hasn't been manufactured yet. One is not liable for death or injury, the other not manufactured yet and they are liable. So, which will they use? The EUA and claim it's fully approved to get people to take it. Meanwhile the approved one hasn't been made. Sounds like a game of 3 card monte to me. Here's the way it works. Somebody who has been hesitant thinks it's fully approved and gets the jab. They die. Family cannot sue. Why? Pfizer claims immunity because of EUA. The full authorization is needed to convince corporations and the military to use it. Any death or injury that they should be liable for will get pitched because they'll claim it was from the earlier stockpile that had EUA. Heads they win, tails you lose.
You are right. I read that entire article. The Pfizer shot has had its EUA extended. The other shot, BioNtech Comirnaty, is the one that is licensed but is not being manufactured. The article explains all of this very clearly to anyone who wishes to read it.
In fact I read the documents when this all started and those documents were quite clear that this is NOT the Pfizer shot that is approved but the one by the name Comirnaty which is not the covid-19 "vaccine".
Trumploaf either cannot read or is intentionally spreading mis-information.
Vaccine manufacturers can't be sued for side effects of vaccines, period.
It doesn't matter if the vaccine is FDA approved or EUA.
Look up the PREP Act. It was passed in 2005, I think.
Also, because I know it's going to be brought up due to the debate over calling the Covid-19 jabs "vaccines"- the technical jargon used in the PREP act includes "medical countermeasures", so the covid jabs are covered under that.
Just a note; my knowledge of the PREP Act doesn't mean I agree with it, so please don't shoot the messenger, 'kay?
Sure it's relevant. CMAnon was theorizing that the vaccine manufacturers would use the EUA status as a means to avoid lawsuits for side effects from the jabs.
I was pointing out that that couldn't be an issue because vaccine manufacturers can not be sued for side effects of their vaccines, no matter if the vaccine is FDA approved or has an EUA.
I wasn't claiming that the vaccines were FDA approved. I was simply pointing out that one of the scenarios described in the conversation was wrong due to the PREP Act.